Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After sketching a context in which to seek observable signals of spatio-temporal discreteness, I briefly review the status of the causal set program for quantum gravity, concluding with a simple model for the field produced by a moving charge in a background causal set. 1. How might discreteness show up? Riemann had a nice phrase somewhere that talked about “the reality that underlies spacetime. ” ⋆ What we know of quantum gravity suggests that that reality is more in the nature of a discrete structure than a continuous one. If so then it’s important to think about phenomena that could reveal this underlying discreteness. Several such possibilities come to mind, some of them present by definition, others suggested by analogy with the discreteness of ordinary material, and still others specific to one or another of the deep structures of spacetime that have been proposed by workers on quantum gravity. Almost by definition, discreteness implies a “cutoff ” in energy and wavelength. How-ever (unless the idea of “large extra dimensions ” turns out to be correct, cf. [1]) the expected Planckian scale of this effect places it beyond direct observation for the present. Moreover (and this is why I included the qualification “Almost ” just above) the concept
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it